Hallwood Cash Register Co. v. Prouty

• Decision Date: 15 October 1907
• Citation: 196 Mass. 313,82 N.E. 6
• Parties: HALLWOOD CASH REGISTER CO. v. PROUTY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

196 Mass. 313

82 N.E. 6

HALLWOOD CASH REGISTER CO. v. PROUTY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 15, 1907

COUNSEL

Willmore B. Stone, for plaintiff.

H. A Buzzell, for defendant.

OPINION

RUGG J.

This an action of tort for the conversion of a cash register. The plaintiff introduced evidence of title in itself, value and conversion by the defendant. The defendant called a former district manager and sales agent of the plaintiff, who testified that the plaintiff had ceased to manufacture manchines like that in controversy shortly after June, 1901 (the sale of this machine having been made in March, 1901). In response to the question 'if he knew why' the offer was made 'for the purpose of determining the value of a machine of this class at the time of the alleged conversion' to show that 'the manufacture of this particular model had been discontinued by the plaintiff because it did not give satisfaction. They had made improvements, and had discontinued the sale of this model at the original price; that this model was sold by the plaintiff at a reduced price, and could have been bought at the time of the alleged conversion at a greatly reduced price.'

The defendant's exception to the exclusion of this inquiry must be overruled. The question was incompetent. The reason why a manufacturer ceased to make a particular machine is not a material fact as to its value. It might arise from financial reverses, failure to make a profit, bad management, or one of numerous other causes, none of which bear upon the value of the machine. Moreover, the offer was far broader than the question, and in large part was not responsive to it, and therefore properly excluded. Upon a proper inquiry it would have been material to prove that prior to the time of conversion, such improvements had been made as to render the machine antequated and of small value, and that its design was such that it could not operate smoothly, and that a new machine could then have been bought at price much less than that for which this one had been sold. But one cannot propound a question incompetent in its substance and narrow in scope, and then, by offering to prove irresponsive though material matters, thereby save a good exception. Evidence offered must be responsive to a competent question, in order that its exclusion be error.

The same witness, having testified that in May or June, 1902, he bought and sold a...